Chapter 1

Is There Really a God?

When Christians claim that the God of the Bible created all the basic entities of life and the universe, some will ask what seems to be a logical question: “Who created God?”

God—an Eternal, Uncreated Being?

In our everyday experience, just about everything seems to have a beginning.
In fact, the laws of science show that even things which look the same
through our lifetime, such as the sun and other stars, are, in reality, running
down. The sun is using up its fuel at millions of tons each second—since the
sun cannot last forever, it had to have a beginning. The same can be shown to
be true for the entire universe.

So when Christians claim that the God of the Bible created all the basic
entities of life and the universe, some will ask what seems to be a logical question:
“Who created God?”

The very first verse in the Bible declares: “In the beginning God ... .” There is no attempt in these words to prove the existence of God or imply in
any way that God had a beginning. In fact, the Bible makes it clear in many
places that God is outside time. He is eternal, with no beginning or end. He
also knows all things, being infinitely intelligent.

Is it logical, though, to accept the existence of such an eternal being? Can
modern science, which has produced our technology of computers, space shuttles,
and medical advances, even allow for such a notion?1

What Would We Look For?

What evidence would we expect to find if there really is an infinite God
who created all things as the Bible claims? How would we even recognize the
hand of such an omnipotent (all-powerful) Creator?

The Bible claims that God knows all things—He is omniscient! Therefore,
He is infinitely intelligent. To recognize His handiwork, one would have
to know how to recognize the evidence of the works of His intelligence.

How Do We Recognize the Evidence of Intelligence?

Why do scientists become so excited when they discover stone tools
together with bones in a cave? The stone tools show signs of intelligence.
The scientists recognize that these tools could not have designed themselves
but that they are a product of intelligent input. Thus, the researchers rightly
conclude that an intelligent creature was responsible for making these
tools.

In a similar way, one would
never look at the Great Wall of
China, the U.S. Capitol building
in Washington, D.C., or the Sydney
Opera House in Australia and
conclude that such structures were
formed after explosions in a brick
factory.

Neither would anyone believe
that the presidents’ heads on Mt.
Rushmore were the products of millions
of years of erosion. We can recognize design, the evidence of the
outworkings of intelligence. We see
man-made objects all around us—cars, airplanes, computers, stereos,
houses, appliances, and so on. And
yet, at no time would anyone ever
suggest that such objects were just
the products of time and chance.
Design is everywhere. It would never
enter our minds that metal, left to itself, would eventually form into engines, transmissions, wheels, and all
the other intricate parts needed to produce an automobile.

This “design argument” is often associated with the name of William
Paley, an Anglican clergyman who wrote on this topic in the late eighteenth
century. He is particularly remembered for his example of the watch and
the watchmaker. In discussing a comparison between a stone and a watch,
he concluded that “the watch must have had a maker; that there must have
existed, at some time and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who
formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended
its construction, and designed its use.”2

Paley thus believed that, just as the watch implied a watchmaker, so too
does design in living things imply a Designer. Although he believed in a God
who created all things, his God was a Master Designer who is now remote
from His Creation, not the personal God of the Bible.3

Today, however, a large proportion of the population, including many leading
scientists, believe that all plants and creatures, including the intelligent engineers
who make watches, cars, etc., were the product of an evolutionary process—
not a Creator God.4 But this is not a defensible position, as we will see.

Living Things Show Evidence of Design!

The late Isaac Asimov, an ardent anti-creationist, declared, “In man is a
three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly
arrangement of matter in the universe.”5 It is much more complex than the
most complicated computer ever built. Wouldn’t it be logical to assume that
if man’s highly intelligent brain designed the computer, then the human brain
was also the product of design?

Scientists who reject the concept of a Creator God agree that all living
things exhibit evidence of design. In essence, they accept the design argument of Paley, but not Paley’s Designer. For example, Dr. Michael Denton, a non-Christian medical doctor and scientist with a doctorate in molecular biology,
concludes:

It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we
look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of
an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea
of chance.
Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular
machinery of life, even our most advanced artifacts appear clumsy.
We feel humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of twentiethcentury
technology.
It would be an illusion to think that what we are aware of at present
is any more than a fraction of the full extent of biological design. In
practically every field of fundamental biological research ever-increasing
levels of design and complexity are being revealed at an ever-accelerating
rate.6

Dr. Richard Dawkins, holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair of Public Understanding
of Science at Oxford University, has become one of the world’s
leading evolutionist spokespersons. His fame has come as the result of the
publication of books, including The Blind Watchmaker, which defend modern
evolutionary theory and claim to refute once and for all the notion of a Creator
God. He said, “We have seen that living things are too improbable and
too beautifully ‘designed’ to have come into existence by chance.”7

There is no doubt that even the most ardent atheist concedes that design
is evident in the animals and plants that inhabit our planet. If Dawkins rejects
“chance” in design, what does he put in place of “chance” if he does not accept
a Creator God?

Who—or What—Is the Designer Then?

Design obviously implies a designer. To a Christian, the design we see
all around us is totally consistent with the Bible’s explanation: “In the beginning
God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1), and “For by him [Jesus Christ] all things were created that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible,
whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers.
All things were created through him and for him” (Colossians 1:16).

However, evolutionists like Richard Dawkins, who admit the design in
living things, reject the idea of any kind of a Designer/God. In reference to
Paley, Dawkins states:

Paley’s argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed by
the best biological scholarship of his day, but it is wrong, gloriously and
utterly wrong. The analogy between telescope and eye, between watch
and living organism, is false.8

Why? It is because Dawkins attributes the design to what he calls “blind
forces of physics” and the processes of natural selection. Dawkins writes:

All appearance to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the
blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way. A true
watchmaker has foresight: he designs
his cogs and springs, and plans their
interconnections, with future purpose
in his mind’s eye. Natural selection, the
blind, unconscious, automatic process
which Darwin discovered, and which
we now know is the explanation for
the existence and apparently purposeful
form of all life, has no purpose in
mind. It has no mind and no mind’s
eye. It does not plan for the future. It
has no vision, no foresight, no sight at
all. If it can be said to play the role of
watchmaker in nature, it is the blind
watchmaker [emphasis added].9

Dawkins does, however, concede that “the more statistically improbable a
thing is, the less can we believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially
the obvious alternative to chance is an Intelligent Designer.”10

Nonetheless, he rejects the idea of an “Intelligent Designer” and instead
offers this “answer”:

The answer, Darwin’s answer, is by gradual, step-by-step transformations
from simple beginnings, from primordial entities sufficiently simple to
have come into existence by chance. Each successive change in the gradual
evolutionary process was simple enough, relative to its predecessor,
to have arisen by chance.
But the whole sequence of cumulative steps constitutes anything but
a chance process, when you consider the complexity of the final end
product relative to the original starting point. The cumulative process
is directed by nonrandom survival. The purpose of this chapter is to
demonstrate the power of this cumulative selection as a fundamentally
nonrandom process.11

Basically, then, Dawkins is doing nothing more than insisting that natural
selection12 and mutations13 together provide the mechanism for the evolutionary
process. He believes these processes are nonrandom and directed.
In reality, this is just a sophisticated way of saying that evolution is itself the
designer.

Does Natural Selection Produce Design?

Life is built on information. A great amount of this information is contained
in that molecule of heredity, DNA, which makes up the genes of an
organism. Therefore, to argue that natural selection and mutations are the
basic mechanisms of the evolutionary process, one must show that these processes
produce the information responsible for the design that is evident in
living things.

Anyone who understands basic biology recognizes, of course, as Darwin
did, that natural selection is a logical process that one can observe.
However, natural selection only operates on the information that is already
contained in the genes—it does not produce new information.14
Actually, this is consistent with the Bible’s account of origins, in that God
created distinct kinds of animals and plants, each to reproduce after its
own kind.

It is true that one can observe great variation in a kind and see the
results of natural selection. For instance, wolves, coyotes, and dingoes
have developed over time as a result of natural selection operating on the
information found in the
genes of the wolf/dog
kind. But the point is that
no new information was
produced—these varieties
of dogs have resulted from
a rearrangement, sorting
out, and separation of
the information in the
original dog kind. One
kind has never been
observed to change into a
totally different kind with
information that previously did not exist.15 Without intelligent input to increase information, natural selection will not work as a mechanism for evolution.

Denton confirms this when he states:

It cannot be stressed enough that evolution by natural selection is analogous
to problem solving without any intelligent guidance, without any
intelligent input whatsoever. No activity which involves an intelligent
input can possibly be analogous to evolution by natural selection.16

Without a way to increase information, natural selection will not work
as a mechanism for evolution. Evolutionists would agree with this, but they
believe that mutations somehow provide the new information for natural
selection to act upon.

Can Mutations Produce New Information?

Actually, scientists now know that the answer is “no!” Dr. Lee Spetner, a
highly qualified scientist who taught information and communication theory
at Johns Hopkins University, makes this abundantly clear in his scholarly and
thoroughly researched book, Not by Chance:

In this chapter I’ll bring several examples of evolution, particularly mutations,
and show that information is not increased. ... But in all the
reading I’ve done in the life-sciences literature, I’ve never found a mutation
that added information.17

All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn
out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.18

The NDT [neo-Darwinian theory] is supposed to explain how information
of life has been built up by evolution. The essential biological
difference between a human and a bacterium is in the information
they contain. All other biological differences follow from that. The
human genome has much more information than does the bacterial
genome. Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it. A business can’t make money by losing it a little at a time [emphasis added].19

Evolutionary scientists have no way around this conclusion that many scientists,
including Dr. Spetner, have now come to. Mutations do not work as a
mechanism for the evolutionary process. Spetner sums it all up as follows:

The neo-Darwinians would like us to believe that large evolutionary
changes can result from a series of small events if there are enough of
them. But if these events all lose information they can’t be the steps in
the kind of evolution the NDT is supposed to explain, no matter how
many mutations there are. Whoever thinks macroevolution can be made
by mutations that lose information is like the merchant who lost a little
money on every sale but thought he could make it up in volume ... .
Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information
to the genome. That surely shows that there are not the millions upon
millions of potential mutations the theory demands. There may well not
be any. The failure to observe even one mutation that adds information
is more than just a failure to find support for the theory. It is evidence
against the theory. We have here a serious challenge to neo-Darwinian
theory [emphasis added].20

This is also confirmed by Dr. Werner Gitt, a director and professor at the
German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology. In answering the question,
“Can new information originate through mutations?” he said:

This idea is central in representations of evolution, but mutations can
only cause changes in existing information. There can be no increase in
information, and in general the results are injurious. New blueprints
for new functions or new organs cannot arise; mutations cannot be the
source of new (creative) information [emphasis added].21

So if natural selection and mutations are eliminated as mechanisms to
produce the information and design of living systems, then another source
must be found.

But there are even more basic problems for those who reject the Creator
God as the source of information.

More Problems!

Imagine yourself sitting in the seat of a 747 airplane, reading about the
construction of this great plane. You are fascinated by the fact that this flying
machine is made up of six million parts—but then you realize that not one
part by itself flies. This realization can be rather disconcerting if you are flying
along at 500 mph (805 km/h) at 35,000 feet (10,668 m).

You can be comforted, however, by the fact that even though not one
part of an airplane flies on its own, when it is assembled as a completed machine,
it does fly.

We can use the construction of an airplane as an analogy to understand
the basic mechanisms of the biochemistry of cells that enable organisms
to function.

Scientists have found that within the cell there are thousands of what
can be called “biochemical
machines.” For example,
one could cite the cell’s ability
to sense light and turn it
into electrical impulses. But
what scientists once thought
was a simple process within
a cell, such as being able to
sense light and turn it into
electrical impulses, is in fact a
highly complicated event. For
just this one example alone to
work, numerous compounds
must all be in the right place,
at the right time, in the right concentration—or it just won’t happen. In other words, just as all the parts
of a 747 need to be assembled before it can fly, so all the parts of these “biochemical
machines” in cells need to be in place, or they can’t function. And
there are literally thousands of such “machines” in a single cell that are vital
for it to operate.

What does this mean? Quite simply, evolution from chemicals to a living
system is impossible.

Scientists now know that life is built on these “machines.” Dr.
Michael Behe, Associate Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University
in Pennsylvania, describes these “biochemical machines” as examples of
“irreducible complexity”:

Now it’s the turn of the fundamental science of life, modern biochemistry,
to disturb. The simplicity that was once expected to be the foundation
of life has proven to be a phantom; instead, systems of horrendous, irreducible
complexity inhabit the cell. The resulting realization that life
was designed by an intelligence is a shock to us in the twentieth century
who have gotten used to thinking of life as the result of simple natural
laws. But other centuries have had their shocks, and there is no reason
to suppose that we should escape them [emphasis added].22

To illustrate this further, consider
swatting a mosquito.

Then think about this question:
Why did the mosquito die? You see,
the squashed mosquito has all the
chemicals for life that an evolutionist
could ever hope for in some primordial soup. Yet we know that nothing
is going to evolve from this mosquito
“soup.” So why did the mosquito
die? Because by squashing it, you disorganized
it.

Once the “machinery” of the
mosquito has been destroyed, the
organism can no longer exist. At a
cellular level, literally thousands of
“machines” need to exist before life ever becomes possible. This means that evolution from chemicals is impossible.
Evolutionist Dawkins recognizes this problem of needing “machinery”
to start with when he states:

A Xerox machine is capable of copying its own blueprints, but it is not
capable of springing spontaneously into existence. Biomorphs readily
replicate in the environment provided by a suitably written computer
program, but they can’t write their own program or build a computer to
run it. The theory of the blind watchmaker is extremely powerful given
that we are allowed to assume replication and hence cumulative selection.
But if replication needs complex machinery, since the only way
we know for complex machinery ultimately to come into existence is
cumulative selection, we have a problem.23

A problem indeed! The more we look into the workings of life, the more
complicated it becomes, and the more we see that life could not arise by itself.
Not only does life require a source of information, but the complex “machines”
of the chemistry of life must be in existence right from the start.

A Greater Problem Still!

Some scientists and educators have tried to get around the above problems
by speculating that as long as all the chemicals that make up the molecule
of heredity (and the information it contains) came together at some
time in the past, then life could have begun.

Life is built upon information. In fact, in just one of the trillions of
cells that make up the human body, the
amount of information in its genes would
fill at least 1,000 books of 500 pages of
typewritten information. Scientists now
think this is hugely underestimated.

Where did all this information come
from? Some try to explain it this way:
imagine a professor taking all the letters
of the alphabet, A–Z, and placing them
in a hat. He then passes the hat around
to students of his class and asks each to
randomly select a letter.

It is easy for us to see the possibility (no matter how remote it seems)
of three students in a row selecting B then A and finally T. Put these three
letters together and they spell a word—BAT. Thus, the professor concludes,
given enough time, no matter how improbable it seems, there is always the
possibility one could form a series of words that make a sentence, and eventually
compile an encyclopedia. The students are then led to believe that no
intelligence is necessary in the evolution of life from chemicals. As long as
the molecules came together in the right order for such compounds as DNA,
then life could have begun.

On the surface, this sounds like a logical
argument. However, there is a basic,
fatal flaw in this analogy. The sequence of
letters, B-A-T, is a word to whom? Someone
who speaks English, Dutch, French,
German, or Chinese? It is a word only
to someone who knows the language. In
other words, the order of letters is meaningless
unless there is a language system
and a translation system already in place
to make the order meaningful.

In the DNA of a cell, the order of
its molecules is also meaningless, except that in the biochemistry of a cell,
there is a language system (other molecules) that makes the order meaningful.
DNA without the language system is meaningless, and the language
system without the DNA wouldn’t work either. The other complication is
that the language system that reads the order of the molecules in the DNA
is itself specified by the DNA. This is another one of those “machines” that
must already be in existence and fully formed, or life won’t work!

Can Information Arise from Noninformation?

We have already shown that information cannot come from mutations, a
so-called mechanism of evolution, but is there any other possible way information
could arise from matter?

Dr. Werner Gitt makes it clear that one of the things we know for sure
from science is that information cannot arise from disorder by chance. It always
takes (greater) information to produce information, and ultimately information
is the result of intelligence:

A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an
intelligent origin or inventor) ... . It should be emphasized that matter
as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a
thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and
creativity, is required.24

There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to
information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon
known that can do this.25

“There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known
sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself
in matter.26

What Then Is the Source of the Information?

We can therefore conclude that the huge amount of information in living
things must originally have come from an intelligence, which had to have
been far superior to ours. But then, some will say that such a source would
have to be caused by something with even greater information/intelligence.

However, if they reason this way, one could ask where even this greater
information/intelligence came from. And then where did that one come
from? One could extrapolate to infinity, unless there was a source of infinite
intelligence, beyond our finite understanding. But isn’t this what the Bible
indicates when we read, “In the beginning God ...”? The God of the Bible is
not bound by limitations of time, space, or anything else.

Even Richard Dawkins recognizes this:

Once we are allowed simply to postulate organized complexity, if only
the organized complexity of the DNA/protein replicating engine, it is
relatively easy to invoke it as a generator of yet more organized complexity.
That, indeed, is what most of this book is about. But of course
any God capable of intelligently designing something as complex as the
DNA/protein replicating machine must have been at least as complex
and organized as that machine itself. Far more so if we suppose him additionally capable of such advanced
functions as listening to prayers and forgiving sins. To explain the origin
of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like, “God was always there,” and
if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just
say “DNA was always there,” or “Life was always there,” and be done
with it.27

So what is the logically defensible position? Is it that matter has eternally
existed (or came into existence by itself for no reason) and then that, by itself,
matter was arranged into
information systems against
everything observed in real
science? Or did an eternal Being,
the God of the Bible, the
source of infinite intelligence,28
create information systems for
life to exist, which agrees with
real science?

If real science supports the
Bible’s claims about an eternal
Creator God, then why isn’t
this readily accepted? Michael Behe answers with this:

The fourth and most powerful reason for science’s reluctance to embrace
a theory of intelligent design is also based on philosophical considerations.
Many people, including many important and well-respected scientists,
just don’t want there to be anything beyond nature. They don’t
want a supernatural being to affect nature, no matter how brief or constructive
the interaction may have been. In other words ... they bring
an a priori philosophical commitment to their science that restricts what
kinds of explanations they will accept about the physical world. Sometimes
this leads to rather odd behavior.29

The crux of the matter is this: if one accepts there is a God who created
us, then that God also owns us. If this God is the God of the Bible, He
owns us and thus has a right to set the rules by which we must live. More
important, He also tells us in the Bible that we are in rebellion against Him, our Creator. Because of this rebellion (called sin), our physical bodies are
sentenced to death; but we will live on forever, either with God or without
Him in a place of judgment. But the good news is that our Creator provided a
means of deliverance for our sin of rebellion, so that those who come to Him
in faith and repentance for their sin can receive the forgiveness of a holy God
and spend eternity with Him.

God Is the Foundation for Science and Reason

As stated before, the Bible takes God’s existence as a given. It never attempts
to prove the existence of God, and this for a very good reason. When
we logically prove a particular thing, we show that it must be true because
it follows logically from something authoritative. But there is nothing more
authoritative than God and His Word. God knows absolutely everything. So
it makes sense to base our worldview on what God has written in His Word.

Some people claim that it is unscientific to start from God’s Word. But
in reality, nothing could be further from the truth. A belief in God is actually
foundational to logical thought and scientific inquiry. Think about it: why is
logical reasoning possible? There are laws of logic that we use when we reason.
For example, there is the law of noncontradiction, which states that you can’t
have “A” and “not-A” at the same time and in the same relationship. We all
“know” that this is true. But why is it true, and how do we know it?

The Bible makes sense of this: God is self-consistent. He is noncontradictory,
and so this law follows from God’s nature. And God has made us in His
image; so we instinctively know this law. It has been hard-wired into us. Logical
reasoning is possible because God is logical and has made us in His image. (Of
course, because of the Curse we sometimes make mistakes in logic.)

If the universe were merely a chance accident, then why should logical reasoning be possible?

But if the universe were merely a chance accident, then why should logical
reasoning be possible? If my brain is merely the product of mutations
(guided only by natural selection), then why should I think that it can determine
what is true? The secular, evolutionary worldview cannot account for
the existence of logical reasoning.

Likewise, only a biblical worldview can really account for the existence of
science—the study of the natural world. Science depends on the fact that the
universe obeys orderly laws which do not arbitrarily change. But why should
that be so? If the universe were merely an accident, why should it obey logical,
orderly laws—or any laws at all for that matter? And why should these laws
not be constantly changing, since so many other things change?

The Bible explains this. There are orderly laws because a logical Law-Giver
upholds the universe in a logical and consistent way. God does not change;
so He sustains the universe in a consistent way. Only a biblical worldview can
account for the existence of science and technology.

Now, does this mean that a non-Christian is incapable of reasoning logically
or doing science? Not at all. But he is being inconsistent. The non-Christian must “borrow” the above biblical principles in order to do science, or to think rationally. But this is inconsistent. The unbeliever must use biblical
ideas in order to use science and reason, while he simultaneously denies
that the Bible is true.

So Who Created God?

By very definition, an eternal Being has always existed—nobody created
Him. God is the Self-Existent One—the great “I Am” of the Bible.30 He is outside
time; in fact, He created time. Think about it this way: everything that has
a beginning requires a cause. The universe has a beginning and therefore requires
a cause. But God has no beginning since He is beyond time. So God does not
need a cause. There is nothing illogical about an eternal Being who has always
existed even though it might be difficult to fully understand.

You might argue, “But that means I have to accept this by faith because
I can’t totally understand it.”

We read in the book of Hebrews: “But without faith it is impossible to
please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is
a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him” (11:6).

What kind of faith is Christianity
then? It is not blind faith as
some may think. In fact, it is the
evolutionists who deny the Creator
who have the blind “faith.”31
They have to believe in something
(i.e., that information can arise
from disorder by chance) which
goes against real science.

But Christ, through the Holy
Spirit, actually opens the eyes of Christians so that they can see that their faith is real.32 The Christian faith is a
logically defensible faith. This is why the Bible makes it very clear that anyone
who does not believe in God is without excuse: “For since the creation of the
world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things
that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without
excuse” (Romans 1:20).

How Do We Know the Creator Is the God of the Bible?

You can believe fallible man’s ideas that there is no God, or trust the perfect
Word of God, the 66 books of the Bible, that says there is. The issue is
simple; it is a matter of faith—God exists or God doesn’t exist. The exciting
thing about being a Christian is knowing that the Bible is not just another
religious book, but it is the Word of the Creator God, as it claims.33

Only the Bible explains why there is beauty and ugliness; why there is life
and death; why there is health and disease; why there is love and hate. Only
the Bible gives the true and reliable account of the origin of all basic entities
of life and the entire universe.

And over and over again, the Bible’s historical account has been confirmed
by archaeology, biology, geology, and astronomy. No contradiction or
erroneous information has ever been found in its pages, even though it was
written over hundreds of years by many different authors, each inspired by
the Holy Spirit.

Scientists from many different fields have produced hundreds of books
and tapes defending the Bible’s accuracy and its claim that it is a revelation to
us from our Creator. It not only tells us who we are and where we came from,
but it also shares the good news of how we can spend eternity with our Lord
and Savior. Take that first step and place your faith in God and His Word.

The New Answers Book

The New Answers Book is packed with biblical answers to over 25 of the most important questions on creation/evolution and the Bible. Richly illustrated with photos, charts, and graphs, this book is a must-read for everyone who desires to better understand the world in which they live. Perhaps the most helpful benefit is that each chapter is “stand alone” and can be read in any order.

This is the process by which life is supposed to have arisen spontaneously from nonlife. Over long periods of time, different kinds of animals and plants have then supposedly developed as a result of small changes, resulting in an increase in genetic information. For
instance, evolutionists propose that fish developed into amphibians, amphibians into reptiles, reptiles evolved into birds and mammals. Man eventually evolved from an ancestor shared
with apes.

I. Asimov, In the game of energy and thermodynamics you can’t even break even, Smithsonian, June 1970, 10.

Dr. Gary Parker, a creationist, argues that natural selection does occur, but operates as
a “preservative” and has nothing to do with one organism changing into another. “Natural
selection is just one of the processes that operates in our present corrupted world to insure
that the created kinds can indeed spread throughout the Earth in all its ecologic and
geographic variety (often, nowadays, in spite of human pollution).” G. Parker, Creation: Facts of Life, Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 1994, 75.
“[Richard] Lewontin is an evolutionist and outspoken anticreationist, but he honestly
recognizes the same limitations of natural selection that creation scientists do: ‘ ... natural
selection operates essentially to enable the organisms to maintain their state of adaptation
rather than to improve it.’ Natural selection does not lead to continual improvement
(evolution); it only helps to maintain features that organisms already have (creation).
Lewontin also notes that extinct species seem to have been just as fit to survive as modern
ones, so he adds: ‘... natural selection over the long run does not seem to improve a species’
chances of survival, but simply enables it to “track,” or keep up with, the constantly changing
environment.’”
“It seems to me that natural selection works only because each kind was created with
sufficient variety to multiply and fill the earth in all its ecologic and geographic variety.” G. Parker, Creation: Facts of Life, 84–86. See also C. Wieland, Stones and Bones, Creation Science Foundation, Acacia Ridge D.C., Queensland, Australia, 1995, 18–20.

For instance, despite many unproved claims to the contrary by evolutionists, nobody has
observed or documented a reptile changing into a bird. The classic example paraded by some
evolutionists as an “in-between” creature, Archaeopteryx, has now been rejected by many
evolutionists.

Newsletter

Thank You!

Thank you for signing up to receive email newsletters from Answers in Genesis.

Whoops!

Your newsletter signup did not work out. Please refresh the page and try again.

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus on providing answers to questions about the Bible—particularly the book of Genesis—regarding key issues such as creation, evolution, science, and the age of the earth.